lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 190
Report #190 Skillset: Tinkering Skill: Statues Org: Spiritsingers Status: Rejected May 2009 Furies' Decision: We do not find this to be necessary. Problem: With the recent, numerous lengths taken to not only balance the disparity between the forests and the cities in terms of mechanics and even the inclusion of ability specializations to make the necessities more wide-spread, the fact that to protect a village more fully, a commune would still have to approach a city to perform the task of raising statues within their obligated territories remains fairly odd. Solution #1: As Cubes has been moved within both the Tinkering and Spellcraft specializations of Enchantment, include Statues to Tinkering as well to get rid of this other step of commune/city dependency. Solution #2: To remove the disparity between commune and city defenses, remove the capability of raising statues within -villages only- all throughout the Basin. Player Comments: ---on 5/8 @ 17:45 writes: Given this argument, I could see a reason to exchange cubes in tinkering for statues, but both would really just make it so tinkering has all of the useful abilities in enchantments (as enchanted jewelry, etc. essentially stay enchanted if recharged from a cube). Having both skills would likely be too much. ---on 5/8 @ 21:43 writes: ...what. Exchange Cubes for Statues? Uh, no. The point is to even out the availability of the Enchantment skillset by making available the utility of both skills for all types of organizations, not neuter one side since they would only have Statues whereas the other would then have the option of both Cubes and Statues. Of course, we can always just go with the second option of removing Statues from villages altogether, considering that the disparity between village defense is also being addressed by the report. ---on 5/9 @ 01:30 writes: It's simply putting a skill that everyone needs in both skillsets. A third alternative would be to let us "grow" totems in villages (would have to grow and act differently than totems in the Communes, such as not providing power, growing faster, being destroyable with a certain amount of time spent and not taking so long to grow). That seems relatively... complicated, so the easiest solution would be to just put statues in tinkering. ---on 5/9 @ 13:56 writes: Sure why not! The enchantment market has already been destroyed, lets keep on it! ---on 5/9 @ 22:45 writes: As Xenthos put, indeed, that could be a third solution but it really does require far too much coding than simply putting Statues into Tinkering as well. As for the Enchantment market, couldn't quite blame equality for one's own skills as a seller. I know I'm not having trouble, and I'm not one of the classes who provides some of the more needed enchantments for defenses. ---on 5/19 @ 18:13 writes: I agree village defense is an important issue and statues are an inportant part of village defense. Tinkerers should get statues too. ---on 5/20 @ 23:25 writes: I agree with Gregori's above comment. Statues are crucial to village defense, and Communes should be entitled to the same benefit ---on 5/28 @ 04:42 writes: I don't see a particular need to add statue enchanting to communes, as when there is a commune/city alliance, communes can pay to have their statues enchanted. But, if we go down the road of allowing communes and cities to function independently of each other, then it should extend beyond just looking at enchanting, but also at alchemy. Currently, communes can upkeep the city-only enchantments indefinitely by repairing city-enchanted jewelry, whereas cities do not have a similar way to maintain commune-potions once consumed (notably vitae). To summarize, I don't think a change to enchanting based on a balancing argument should be made in isolation. ---on 5/28 @ 14:25 writes: If a lack is noted within the Alchemy distribution, then feel free to address it within a report as I have done with this lack in this Enchantment solution. Arguing that a change should not be made to even a balance out is just funky since isn't that what we're supposed to be doing as envoys? ---on 5/28 @ 14:56 writes: Yes, but my point is enchantment/alchemy are somewhat tied, as they were changed at the same time from city-only/commune-only skills to allow greater freedom, so to suggest making a change to one on the basis of a city/commune imbalance should necessitate looking at the other, as to make communes free from the needs of the city re: enchanting, but to not have it the same with alchemy creates its own imbalance. If these changes go through, I'd bet an alchemy report will follow close behind. ---on 5/28 @ 20:55 writes: Which would be as it should be to facilitate a change to even the balance between the two skillsets. Disagreeing with a necessary change because of the subsequent changes thereafter which would result in a more evened pair of skillsets would be counterproductive to our role for a more balanced game. ---on 5/30 @ 23:43 writes: As Zynna points out, this is one of many imbalances, but it is a good place to start.